Senators: DUI checkpoint apps are “harmful to public safety”

Apple, Google, and RIM all have mobile apps on their respective stores that …

DUI checkpoints are supposed to be a surprise, not something you can carefully plan your drinking-and-driving night around, according to four US Senators. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Harry Reid (D-NV), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Tom Udall (D-NM) have written an open letter to Apple, Google, and RIM asking the companies to stop peddling apps that help drunk drivers avoid the police, calling the software "harmful to public safety."

The apps in question range from those that try to put DUI checkpoints on a map in real time to those that help users alert one another about police on the prowl for drunk drivers. One app that we found in the iOS App Store called "Checkpointer" specifically advertises its $4.99 offering as being able to save you "thousands of dollars by helping you avoid an arrest for a DUI." (The company that sells Checkpointer also offers bail bonds, so it's clear which demographic this company is catering to.) Another app called "Buzzed" says it will alert you when a DUI checkpoint shows up or is planned for your area, though it also offers a "call a cab" service based on your GPS location.

Similarly, Checkpoint Wingman for $1.99 on the Android Market offers real-time alerts when you are geographically close to a DUI Checkpoint, and PhantomALERT on both Android Market and Blackberry App World alerts users to the presence of DUI checkpoints, school zones, red light cameras, and speed traps.

In their letter, the Senators pointed that 10,000 Americans die from drunk driving incidents annually, arguing that access to these apps is only detrimental to the public.

"We appreciate the technology that has allowed millions of Americans to have information at their fingertips, but giving drunk drivers a free tool to evade checkpoints, putting innocent families and children at risk, is a matter of public concern," reads the letter. "We know that your companies share our desire to end the scourge of drunk driving and we therefore would ask you to remove these applications from your store unless they are altered to remove the DUI/DWI checkpoint functionality."

It's unclear whether any of the companies plan to comply with the senators' request. If we were to guess, though, Apple might be the one to agree to get rid of DUI checkpoint-related apps—after all, it recently removed a "gay cure" app after some public outcry. Google's Android Market will likely remain a general free-for-all, though we're not sure which way RIM might go. Apple, RIM, and Google did not respond to our requests for comment.

177 Reader Comments

It's unclear whether any of the companies plan to comply with the senators' request. If we were to guess, though, Apple might be the one to agree to get rid of DUI checkpoint-related apps—after all, it recently removed a "gay cure" app after some public outcry

Public outcry and Senator outcry isn't quite the same thing. Senators asking for this I think feels a little too closely of government censorship of something it doesn't like. I understand their point, but the apps aren't doing something illegal, just something the Senators/police/gov don't like.

It's unclear whether any of the companies plan to comply with the senators' request. If we were to guess, though, Apple might be the one to agree to get rid of DUI checkpoint-related apps—after all, it recently removed a "gay cure" app after some public outcry

Public outcry and Senator outcry isn't quite the same thing. Senators asking for this I think feels a little too closely of government censorship of something it doesn't like. I understand their point, but the apps aren't doing something illegal, just something the Senators/police/gov don't like.

To me, it would be interesting if there could exist a factual number, describing the lives saved from death or injury - due to the removal of this app. I would bet it could range from close to none, to a surprising amount. Without that number, we're left to speculate.

I believe there is court precedent requiring notification, and the NHTSA says "To obtain maximum benefit in terms of its general deterrent effect, low-staffing sobriety checkpoints should be publicized aggressively" http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enfo ... elines.htm

I don't see why congress is complaining when people are helping to publicize checkpoints, in keeping with NHTSA guidelines.

That is within their purview to do, but also changes the situation. They wouldn't have to make a request since it's explicitly illegal.

But I'm not sure they could make dissemination of this information illegal, or that they'd want to try. You're basically suggesting that they'd make it illegal to share the fact that there is an openly present law enforcement presence in some location which wouldn't that result in this hypothetical situation:Person X: Help, I need a police officer!Person Y: I'm sorry, I know where there are a bunch, but it is illegal for me to tell you where they are. Have a nice day though!

While it's entirely in the right of the app makers and the public to use these apps -- I don't see much harm in these politicians asking them to stop selling them, or to ask Apple, et al. from carrying them in their App Store.

Now, if they try to force this on anyone, that's where I would have an issue with.

I didn't know about these apps but I want them now, thanks senators. I won't be driving drunk either way, but i do want to avoid checkpoints because they're a pain in the ass, backup traffic, and the officer's have a 70% chance of just being an asshole. These senators really should be more worried about people making connections between their funding and their voting habits. If these apps are actually bad, this is the point where social norms are supposed to take over and you slap your friend when you find out they do something stupid.

Wow, I wonder if any of the Constitutional scholars here can explain exactly how this restriction would violate it.

Can anybody point to court precedent covering speech that explicity ("help you avoid thousands in DUI fines") aids in the commision of a crime? Speech whose only obvious implied purpose is to aid in that crime?

I think these Senators are peddling a solution in search of a problem, but I don't think it's necessarily unconstitutional.

EDIT: Actually, I've never agreed with the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints to begin with, but I still think regulating these apps is probably kosher.

I didn't know about these apps but I want them now, thanks senators. I won't be driving drunk either way, but i do want to avoid checkpoints because they're a pain in the ass, backup traffic, and the officer's have a 70% chance of just being an asshole. These senators really should be more worried about people making connections between their funding and their voting habits. If these apps are actually bad, this is the point where social norms are supposed to take over and you slap your friend when you find out they do something stupid.

This. I don't drive drunk, and I don't want to be bothered by backups and stops. It's just another layer on top of traffic alerts that include accidents and cogestion.

You are free to tell people where dui checkpoints are. You are not free to sell the information as an app for avoiding enforcement of law which you are breaking. Same with it being illegal to use license plate obfuscation optics to avoid cameras.

Yes this is contradictory, and fuzzy and gray. Where is the line between speech though and behavior legislatively regulatable due to potential harm to public safety. I'd argue using twitter is fine (or unregulatable, (#blacksburg_dui_checkpoints), but building a database to do the specific avoidance activity is wrong, and specifically regulatable.

I don't have an issue with checkpoints, in Canada the program is called R.I.D.E. I think drinking and driving is a despicable crime and I think it's a little unsavoury for people to write apps to possibly help drunk drivers get away with it. Just because I feel that way it doesn't mean they don't have the right to create and sell the apps and I don't think the government should be stepping in.

If people who feel strongly against drunk driving refuse to deal with the companies that make the apps they may get the message.

Maybe these senators should be checking their copies of the constitution for the parts about free speech and also unreasonable searches and seizures. I'm pretty sure they're still there.

I am especially disappointed that these are Democrats pushing this crap. Aren't we supposed to be the party of civil rights?

The free speech issue is likely a sticky point, but odds are the first amendment doesn't apply due to it being so commercial in nature and creating an imminent lawless action (speech that is used to help commit a crime, i.e. inciting a riot) from Brandenburg v. Ohio. However, this might be why the senators are requesting rather than writing a law (no first amendment issue if they do it voluntarily)

I have no idea how this works with unreasonable searches and seizures. They're talking about stopping an app being sold, how the heck is that an unreasonable search or seizure?

Wow, I wonder if any of the Constitutional scholars here can explain exactly how this restriction would violate it.

Can anybody point to court precedent covering speech that explicity ("help you avoid thousands in DUI fines") aids in the commision of a crime? Speech whose only obvious implied purpose is to aid in that crime?

I think these Senators are peddling a solution in search of a problem, but I don't think it's necessarily unconstitutional.

EDIT: Actually, I've never agreed with the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints to begin with, but I still think regulating these apps is probably kosher.

The one advertising the avoidance of DUI fines might have trouble, but I would view a lot of these as convenience apps for sober drivers. If I'm driving around sober, going through a DUI checkpoint doesn't help anyone. It wastes my time (extra travel time), wastes the cops' time (extra people to check but no violations), and wastes the time of everyone else going through the checkpoint (extra time sitting around because they have to wait for me to go through first). As a sober driver, I would love to have something that would help me avoid the needless wait, and there's certainly nothing illegal about that.

If they were all advertised as being for sober drivers, I don't think the senators would have anything of a case.

If these tools in the form of software are considered dangerous enough to merit Congressional pressure in support of a ban then what else merits the same treatment and why?

I understand their point of view and I realize that their intentions are pure, but I am not willing to open this version of Pandora's Box over DUI checkpoints and speed traps. If we were talking about apps which clearly and heavily contribute to a threat on national security then maybe I would consider supporting the move, but even then it is going to take a pretty special case for me to do that.

Can anybody point to court precedent covering speech that explicity ("help you avoid thousands in DUI fines") aids in the commision of a crime? Speech whose only obvious implied purpose is to aid in that crime?

I don't drink and drive.

I don't like spending an hour at a checkpoint either. Nor do I like dealing with a cop who's been dealing with angry citizens for hours on end, who's on his last frayed nerve, when I'm in just about the same state after waiting in line to be accused of breaking the law without probably cause (It's assumed I'm drunk, and I have to prove I'm not).

I'd say there's an extremely large market for legal uses for such a program.

You are free to tell people where dui checkpoints are. You are not free to sell the information as an app for avoiding enforcement of law which you are breaking.

Then newspapers wouldn't be able to post where and when DUI checkpoints are going to be. Yet, they have done exactly that for years, at the encouragement of the police departments executing the checkpoints!

You are free to tell people where dui checkpoints are. You are not free to sell the information as an app for avoiding enforcement of law which you are breaking. Same with it being illegal to use license plate obfuscation optics to avoid cameras.

Yes this is contradictory, and fuzzy and gray. Where is the line between speech though and behavior legislatively regulatable due to potential harm to public safety. I'd argue using twitter is fine (or unregulatable, (#blacksburg_dui_checkpoints), but building a database to do the specific avoidance activity is wrong, and specifically regulatable.

Actually, #blacksburg_dui_checkpoints could probably be shut down too. I'm looking at it from a strict scrutiny standpoint (no lawyer, obviously). Assuming we accept that DUI checkpoints have value (I don't, but they're legal, so it's a premise you must start from) then maintaining that effectiveness is a compelling government interest. A law covering apps or twitter feeds explicitly "outing" checkpoints is probably the least restrictive means to address the problem. It's not overinclusive (it only covers specific apps and twitter feeds with a clear explicit/implicit purpose), and it's not underinclusive (you can still call a buddy, but that kind of decentralized "intel" isn't really a systematic threat to the system).

Free speech is not absolute, never has been.

The only real question to me is whether it's a proper power of the federal government...you've got the classic "necessary and proper" clause but this is looking to maintain the integrity of state DUI laws and checkpoints; we have no national DUI law. So it's questionable on those grounds. But free speech? Give me a break.

Something that bears emphasis, since a lot of people have obviously missed it:

This letter is just that. A letter. It isn't a law, or (as far as I can find) even a proposed law. These politicians are asking a few companies to do something the politicians believe is in the public interest.

There is no indication yet that they are attempting to overstep the Constitution with any legal impediment to app stores offering these items. It is, from all I've been able to find, nothing more than a request.

So calm down, take a breath, and relax.

As to the question of the apps themselves, I am now tempted to load one just so I can poison the information and funnel the drunks right into the arms of the law.

I have no idea how this works with unreasonable searches and seizures. They're talking about stopping an app being sold, how the heck is that an unreasonable search or seizure?

The DUI checkpoint itself is the unreasonable search. I don't drink and drive. However, if I drive down the wrong road at the wrong time, I could be pulled over without suspicion and forced to submit to a breathalyzer test. It's unbelievable that the Supreme Court ruled that these are legal while at the same time admitting that they violate the 4th Amendment.

Building a real mass transport systemwould save more American lives then DUI checkpoints senators

Indeed. Go go bus systems that stop running at 9pm (on my side of the water).

And hell, a ferry that stops running at 12:30am from the city, for that matter. Which means if I'm staying out late, I'm driving.

Back in college, our town finally instituted a bus system (funded largely by the school, through student fees) that ran until like 3am on weekends (might have been later). It basically ran in a loop through the bar district, through some densely populated neighborhoods, and back to campus. Plenty of people used it, too.

There was a more robust system in place during the day, of course. But the "drunk bus" ran basically all night on weekends, to prevent/reduce DUIs. Good idea, that.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure that bus was even free, at least for students (since their fees funded the bulk of it).

Can anybody point to court precedent covering speech that explicity ("help you avoid thousands in DUI fines") aids in the commision of a crime? Speech whose only obvious implied purpose is to aid in that crime?

I don't think that what they are asking for is unconstitutional either, but you are touching on a point which relates to my previous comment.

Basically, if they were allowed to get away with this then it would set precedent for our government to ban any software which could "potentially" be used to aid in a crime regardless of how many legal uses it also has. It is a very slippery slope and one which I highly recommend against trying to climb.

I don't have an issue with checkpoints, in Canada the program is called R.I.D.E. I think drinking and driving is a despicable crime and I think it's a little unsavoury for people to write apps to possibly help drunk drivers get away with it. Just because I feel that way it doesn't mean they don't have the right to create and sell the apps and I don't think the government should be stepping in.

If people who feel strongly against drunk driving refuse to deal with the companies that make the apps they may get the message.

In Canada, DUI checkpoints are actually illegal. They do them anyway but with a half-decent lawyer you will be acquitted. It is illegal because we still have rights (unlike Americans), and drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause.

Building a real mass transport systemwould save more American lives then DUI checkpoints senators

Indeed. Go go bus systems that stop running at 9pm (on my side of the water).

And hell, a ferry that stops running at 12:30am from the city, for that matter. Which means if I'm staying out late, I'm driving.

Back in college, our town finally instituted a bus system (funded largely by the school, through student fees) that ran until like 3am on weekends (might have been later). It basically ran in a loop through the bar district, through some densely populated neighborhoods, and back to campus. Plenty of people used it, too.

There was a more robust system in place during the day, of course. But the "drunk bus" ran basically all night on weekends, to prevent/reduce DUIs. Good idea, that.

Then all it takes is a cop checking the bus stops for public intoxication for a couple weekends, encouraging many to go back to taking a chance and drive instead. It seems someone usually screws up stuff that actually works.

Then all it takes is a cop checking the bus stops for public intoxication for a couple weekends, encouraging many to go back to taking a chance and drive instead. It seems someone usually screws up stuff that actually works.

I live in WI, and that's not at all how cops treat our drunk bus. At least from what i'm aware of, it's just left completely alone.